IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Comparative study of structural response
Seismic Analysis of Soft Storey Building in on multi-story buildings with shear wall and
bracing systems
Earthquake Zones M A Rahman, M Teguh and F Saleh

- Comparative seismic fragility assessment

of buckling restrained and self-centering
To cite this article: S Suresh Kannan 2023 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1130 012023 (friction spring and SMA) braced frames
Anas Issa and M Shahria Alam

- Retrofitting of soft storey building by using

different bracing system due to earthquake
load
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Rozaina Ismail, Khalid Ismail and Izzul
Syazwan Ishak

This content was downloaded from IP address 180.149.26.202 on 24/01/2023 at 13:24

ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Seismic Analysis of Soft Storey Building in Earthquake Zones

1
S Suresh Kannan
1
M.Tech – Structural and Construction Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering,
Coimbatore.
E-mail: sureshganu98@gmail.com
Abstract. In this paper (G+8) building is modeled like a bare frame, a bare frame with
the shear wall, and a bare frame with X bracing by changing the soft storey to different
floors. The static analysis effect is determined for all three models with zone IV and zone
V using Staad pro-V8i software. The main objective of the research was to assess the
impact of a soft storey in various earthquake zones and by varying places of the soft
storey from first to the top floor and for frames with different column shapes by seismic
analyses in staad pro. The results of variable building models are obtained from the
research regarding various parameters such as displacement, storey drift, and base shear.
More significantly, comparing different structural systems revealed a reduction in lateral
displacement and story drift. The shear wall reduced the Storey Displacement by
98.838% and storey drift by 99.86%. The Steel bracing reduced the Storey Displacement
by 97.846 % and storey drift by 92.6%. Finally, it has been found that the Shear wall
reduces lateral displacement and storey drift, thus significantly contributing to greater
structural stiffness. The analysis results recommended that the shear wall use reinforced
concrete frames for the seismic hazard zones and the Steel bracing recommended for the
low seismic zones.

Keywords: Soft Storey, High-rise building, Shear wall, Steel bracing, Displacement,
Storey drift.
1. Introduction
The ground floor of a reinforced-concrete framed structure has a unique quality in recent years: it is
left open for recreational and commercial demands such as vehicle parking [1], shops, waiting lobbies,
ample space for a conference hall, a financial hall, and so on. These buildings are known as open-ground
story buildings or soft-story buildings. The storey in which a sudden change in stiffness occurs is referred
to as a soft storey when the change occurs with the height of the building. In the Indian code (clause no.
4.20), a soft storey is one whose lateral stiffness is less than 70% of that of the level above or less than
80% of the average lateral stiffness of the three floors above (IS 1893:2002) [2]. Soft stories can form
on any floor of a high-rise building to meet design criteria and serve various purposes. In this paper,
the earthquake activity of a High-rise structure with an intermediate infill frame was investigated in this
research. The stability of the R.C. frame was analyzed using different soft storey models. The findings
of the study's primary goal were to research the behavior of soft-story buildings with and without
infilled frames and to analyze their performance when subjected to seismic loading.
1.1 The behavior of Soft Storey under Earthquake
In the recent earthquakes, several building structures with soft stories sustained severe structural damage
and collapsed. Cracks are caused by large open areas with minimum infill and outside walls on the
ground storey compared to the adjacent upper levels. The stiffness of the lateral forces resisting
structures at those stories is significantly lower than that of the storeys above or below. Suppose irregular

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
 ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

inter-story drifts between nearby levels develop during seismic activity. In that case, the lateral stresses
cannot be evenly distributed over the structure height. as a result, the lateralforces focus on the
story with the most significant displacement [3]. Furthermore, a local failure mechanism, resulting in
the structural system collapse, may occur if the local ductility needs are not met. At the same time, the
structure does not restrict the storey and inter-story drift.
A story's lateral displacement is caused by the distribution of stiffness, mass, and lateral force over
it. The lateral force distribution along the building height is affected by the stiffness and mass of each
structure. If the P-delta effect is considered the primary cause of building structures dynamic collapsing
during earthquakes, precisely calculated lateral displacements derived during the elastic design phase
may provide crucial information about the system's structural behavior. As a result, manyactual codes
need a static analytical technique for proper distribution of seismic forces throughout the building height
and determining modal impacts and local ductility demands. Because of the presence of infill masonry,
which stiffens the higher levels, they move as a single block. As a result, displacement occurs more in
the soft storey.
During an earthquake, the columns and walls on entrance floors experience more moment and
shear strength than those in the upper storeys. Because the walls are not present in the soft storey level,
the vertical member says as columns are pressed and severely stressed more than those in the other
storeys. The columns may be damaged or collapse if they are not capable of resisting shear.
1.2 Strengthening of soft storey building
1.2.1RC Shear Wall
Structures made of reinforced concrete (RC) with RC walls are called shear walls in addition to
slabs, beams, and columns. These walls frequently start at the foundation level and go up the structure. In
high-rise buildings, the shear wall thickness ranges from 150mm to 400mm[5]. Buildings with RC shear
walls are stronger and more rigid in the orientation direction, which reduces lateral motion and harms the
building and its contents. Because the shear walls are subject to significant earthquake stresses, their
overturning effects are significant. Shear walls are properly constructed in structures to lessen the
detrimental impact of twists. They might be arranged in one or both directions in a symmetrical design.
1.2.2 Cross Bracings
Cross bracings usually have two diagonal elements arranged in an X form. Cross bracing is a
mechanism that can help a building perform better during an earthquake. The cross bracing pushes the
floor and ceiling against one another, strengthening the stability of the structure.
2. Literature Review
Ari Wibowo and John L. Wilson et al. [2] This paper reports on an original experimental field test
investigation that sheds light on a soft story building's push-over load-deflection and collapse behavior.
The five-story structure had been recognized as particularly susceptible to seismic excitation because of
the flimsy connections at either end of the bottom level precast columns that made up the soft storey. To
better understand the lateral force-deflection behavior of the soft story columns. To forecast the overall
force-displacement relationship that was influenced by the three component mechanisms of (a)
connection strength at column ends, (b) gravity rocking strength, and (c) ground slab interaction,
experimental results were found to be in excellent agreement with an analytical model design. The "non-
structural" ground slab's presence increased the system's lateral strength and significantly impacted how
well it worked "as built." The precast soft storey system has a substantially higher displacement
capability than a comparable in situ system because of the stiff body rocking behavior of the columns.
Dipti Ranjan Sahoo and Durgesh C. Rai [4] This paper presents a to enhance the seismic performance
of the current non-ductile RC frames with soft-story at the ground story level, two strengthening
procedures were designed, and their analytical effectiveness was assessed. The first technique, called
column retrofit (CR), only partly encases the flimsy ground-story columns in Steel to improve their
lateral strength and plastic rotational capabilities. Nonlinear static and dynamic evaluations are carried
out to evaluate the efficacy of the existing and improved frames. The main variables examined are
interstorey drift, residual drift, yield mechanism, energy dissipation, and lateral strength. The FR frame
effectively controlled the drift reaction by preventing the soft-story collapse due to the significant energy
dissipation in the shear connections. Additionally, the FR frame achieved the desired yield mechanism
without exceeding the design-specified drift threshold. Elina Jennings and John W. van de Lindt et al.

2
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

[5] Revealed the use of shape memory alloy to improve the seismic strength of the soft storey wood
frame under the nonlinear time history analysis.
Rahul Ghosh and Rama Debbarma [6] This research examines the seismic performance of setback
structures with soft story layouts, situated on level ground and on a hill's slope. Extreme responses for
open ground-storeyed setback buildings were documented using three distinct methodologies used in
the investigation: equivalent static force methodology, response spectrum approach, and time history
method. The most effective strategy among these three mitigation measures is offered to lessen the
influence on the soft storey and the severe responses.
Varaha Venkata Satya Surya Kumar Dadi & Pankaj Agarwal [7] This work aims to enhance
performance-based design using soft-story RC frame building nonlinear modeling. Both qualitative and
quantitative evaluations of different strength and ductility characteristics of tested building components,
including the various types of reinforcing Steel, have been conducted. The performance of prototype
soft-storey RC frame buildings is evaluated under multiple modes of failure, and the cyclic performance
of the G+2 soft-storey RC frame structure is considered. It demonstrates how much the non-linear
characteristics of reinforcement used in different building frame components affect the overall failure
pattern, particularly by assuring a flexure mode of failure.
Mahmud Sami Donduren, Abdulhamit Nakipoglu [8] The soft-story irregularity, which causes the
majority of earthquake losses and damage, was investigated using the criteria of several national building
codes. Based on a generic building model, eleven sub-models were developed and analyzed using the
SAP 2000 structural-analysis software with the conditions of the codes relating to the soft-story
phenomenon. The models' first-story heights differed, but all other parameters and geometries were the
same. The codes were compared in terms of the effect of storey height on the formation of a soft storey
in this way. Eventually, it was revealed that the soft-story irregularity is managed extremely sensibly
and safely, particularly in the Japanese Seismic Code. The soft-story irregularity, which causes
significant losses when subjected to a seismic load, should be determined in national seismic codes using
considerably more sensitive numerical computation methods, particularly in earthquake-prone
countries.
Shamshad Ali and Farhan Malik et al. [13] To explore the seismic effects of soft storey building frames
in G+6 buildings, five models were created by altering the soft story to different floors. The influence
of infill walls has been ignored when considering soft levels with the same floor heights. STAAD PRO
v8i is used to analyze the building. The data is represented by storey drift, displacement, and base shear.
Due to the lack of stiffness of soft storey, a building with a soft storey on any floor is subject to damage
during an earthquake. The drift is most excellent on the floor with the soft story compared to adjacent
floor levels. By using shear walls, Steel bracing, or dampers, this type of RCC frame building can safely
withstand seismic activity.
Silpa Rani M V and Aiswarya S [12] The study of the seismic behavior of a building with soft storeys
at various levels is the subject of this research. Modeling of a G+6 storey irregular RC building is part
of the research. The software application STAAD.Pro V8i is used to model the entire structure. To study
the influence of these parameters on the seismic behavior of systems with a soft storey, equivalent static
analysis was used to conduct parametric studies on displacement, inter-story drift, and foundation shear.
2.1Research objectives
1. To determine the effect of the soft storey in earthquake zones four and five and by varying the
soft storey placement from first to the top floor by seismic analyses in staad pro.
2. To incorporate the above models with shear wall and steel bracings also.'
3. To know the variations in results for storey drift, storey displacement, and base shear for
proposedmodels generated in seismic zones IV and V.
4. Comparison of results between all models generated for all the sets and to compare the effect
of the soft storey for all the sets generated.

3
 ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

2.2 scope of the work

1. Most earthquake code regulations, in general, imply that constructions must be able to withstand
an earthquake.
2. Minor earthquakes without being damaged.
3. Moderate earthquakes cause some non-structural damage but no structural damage.
4. Severe earthquakes cause structural and non-structural damage but do not cause the building to
collapse. The structure is predicted to undergo moderately severe deformations by yielding some
structural components.

3. Methodology
The research procedure follows the data collection, analysis, and results strategies.

Literature collection

Study About Bracings and Shear Wall

Set I: Nine Models Will Be Modeled

And The Soft Storey Located from
Study About Staad Pro V8i Structural Software Ground Floor to Top Floor for Each
Floor Respectively

Modelling Of G+8 Commercial Buildings

with Soft storey at Different Levels

Set II: Nine Models Used in Set I Is

Incorporated with Shear Walls
Analyzing The Three Sets of Structures
in Earthquake
Zone IV And V

Set III: Nine Models Used in Set I Is

Incorporated With Steel Bracings

Discussing The
Comparison of
Three Sets
Result

Conclusion

Figure 1 Research Methodology

4. Method of modeling
To develop a 3D model and perform the analysis, the STAAD Pro V8i software is used. The software
can predict how space frames behave under static or dynamic loadings while accounting for material
inelasticity. The application supports static and dynamic loads and can perform static and dynamic
analyses.

4
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

4.1 General Description

The structures are represented as a series of load-bearing elements. The building will be subjected to
lateral loads based on Indian specifications. IS 1893 (Part1): 2002 is used to carry out this study for
seismic zones IV and V. The building adopted consists of reinforced concrete elements. The building
model data is provided in table 1.

4.1.1 Plan Details

Table 1 Model Data

No.of storey G+8

Story height 3.1m

Soft Story height 4m

Column size 300mmx300mm

Beam size 230mmx300mm

Slab thickness 150mm

Bracing size (Set III) ISA100mmX100mmX10mm

Shear wall Thickness (Set II) 250mm

Zone IV

Zone factor 0.24

Importance factor 1

Response reduction factor 3

Zone V

Zone factor 0.36

Importance factor 1

Response reduction factor 3

Floor Live load 2.5KN/m2 [IS 875 part 2:1987]

Floor Member load 13.72KN/m

Roof Live load 1.5KN/m2

Roof Member load 4.45KN/m

Concrete

Modulus of Elasticity 21.718 KN/mm2

Poisson’s Ratio 170E-3

5
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Density 7833.413 Kg/m3

Alpha 10E-6/℃

Fcu 27.58E-3

Steel

Modulus of Elasticity 205 KN/mm2

Poisson’s Ratio 300E-3

Density 7833.413 Kg/m3

Alpha 12E-6/℃

Fy 253.2E-3

Fu 407.8E-3

Ry 1.2

Rt 1.5

4.1.2 Model Description

This research consists of Set I, a conventional framed structure; SET II, a structure with a shear wall;
and SET III, a structure with bracing. Each model is planned for modeling and analysis in two different
zones, zone IV and zone V.
SET I Case I – RCC Structure analysis in Zone IV
Case II - RCC Structure analysis in Zone V
SET II Case I – RCC Structure with shear wall analysis in Zone IV
Case II- RCC Structure with shear wall analysis in Zone V
SET III Case I – RCC Structure with bracing analysis in Zone IV
Case II - RCC Structure with bracing analysis in Zone V
Soft Storey Representation in Tabulation and Graph
SSL0 - Soft Storey on Ground floor
SSL1 - Soft Storey on First floor
SSL2 - Soft Storey on the Second floor
SSL3 - Soft Storey on Third floor
SSL4 -Soft Storey on Fourth floor
SSL5 -Soft Storey on Fifth floor
SSL6 -Soft Storey on Sixth floor
SSL7 -Soft Storey on Seventh floor
SSL8 -Soft Storey on Eighth floor

6
 ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Figure 2 3DView of Shear Wall Frame Figure 3 3DView of Shear Wall Frame
(SET II) (SET III)

5. Result and Discussion

Based on staad pro analysis, the seismic characteristics of the structure, like storey drift, Base shear, and
storey displacement, are found in each storey of the building for all three sets of frames. The graph
representation provided for storey drift and storey displacement in all nine models of each three sets in
this research
5.1. SET I CASE I & II
Figure 4 shows the storey drift in X-Direction (Zone IV) for nine models of the set I case I. The soft storey
is in different floors the storey drift increased at those floors then decreased successive floors. The
maximum drift gradually decreases for SSL 3, SSL 4, and SSL 5, and there is a plummet atSSL 6.
SSL 3 has a maximum drift of (9.0637 cm) and model SSL 7 has a minimum drift of (1.7866cm). Figure
5 explains the storey displacement in X-Direction (Zone IV) for nine models of the set I case I. The soft
storey is located on th e ground floor; the storey displacement is increased from the ground floor to
the upper floors. A minimum displacement of 4.72 cm is attained for model SSL 1. A maximum
displacement of 42.8 cm is achieved for models SSL 3 and SSL. 4. Figure 6 shows the storey drift in X-
Direction (Zone V) for nine sets I case II models. The maximum drift is attained for the SSL 0 model
(14.13cm) and the minimum drift is achieved for the SSL4 model (1.9660 cm). The maximum drift
gradually decreases from the models SSL 6, SSL 7, and SSL 8. Figure 7 shows the storey displacement
in X-Direction (Zone V) for nine models with various levels of the soft storey of the set I case II. Here
the displacement values will be high for the graph SSL 0. After SSL 0, SSL 1 to SSL 8 will constantly
increase the values. Compared to the other models, model 1 top storey's storey displacement of 49.5mm
results in the highest displacement [14].

7
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Figure 4 Storey Drift for Bare Frame in X- Direction (Zone IV)

Figure 5 Storey Displacement for Bare Frame in X- Direction

(Zone IV)

8
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Figure 6 Storey Drift for Bare Frame in X- Direction (Zone V)

Figure 7 Storey Displacement for Bare Frame in X- Direction (Zone V)

9
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

5.2 SET II CASE I & II

Figure 8 shows the storey drift changes for the shear wall frame on each floor of the model of set II case
I (zone IV). The storey drift for all nine models is reduced compared to set I. Here there is only minimal
difference between the value of drifts between the graphs SSL 0 and SSL 8. In this set, the SSL 8 graph
has a minor storey drift (0.0197 cm), and maximum drift is attained for the SSL 2 model (0.0615 cm).
Figure 9 explains the storey displacement for the shear wall frame in X-Direction for nine models of
set II case I (Zone IV). It is depicted from the graph that the SSL 8 graph has a unique displacement and
a minimum displacement of (0.4893cm). Figure 10 reveals the storey drift changes for the shear wall
frame on each floor of the models of set II case II (Zone V). Maximum drift is attained for model SSL
3(0.0984 cm), and minimum drift is achieved for model SSL 8(0.0296 cm). Figure 11 shows the storey
displacement for the shear wall frame in X-Direction for nine models with various levels in set II case
II (Zone V). The model SSL 8 has a minor displacement (0.734 cm) compared to other models. Here
the models SSL 4 and SSL8 have unique displacement. In instance 1, When compared to M1, M2, and
M3, has been reduced by 13.32%,28.23%, 34.39% respectively [11].

Figure 8 Storey Drift for shear wall frame in X- Direction (Zone IV)

10
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Figure 9 Storey Displacement for shear wall frame in X- Direction (Zone IV)

Figure 10 Storey Drift for shear wall Frame in X- Direction (Zone V)

11
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Figure 11 Storey Displacement for shear wall Frame in X- Direction (Zone V)

5.3. SET III CASE I & II

Figure 12 shows the storey drift variation for Steel bracing Frame at each model floor for set III case I.
The maximum drift is attained for model SSL 4(1.7952 cm), and the minimum drift is achieved for
model SSL8 (0.6856 cm). Figure 13 explains the storey displacement for Steel bracing Frame in X-
Direction for nine models in set III zone IV. The minimum displacement is attained for model SSL
8(1.0775cm). The models SSL 1 and SSL 8 have unique displacements. Figure 14 shows storey drift
variation for the Steel bracing Frame on each floor of the models in set III zone V. The maximum drift
is attained for model SSL 4 (2.6928 cm), and the minimum drift is achieved for model SSL 8 (1.2954
cm). Figure 15 shows the storey displacement for Steel bracing frame in X-Direction for nine models
with various levels for models in set III zone V. Here, the minimum displacement attained at SSL 1
model (1.3609 cm) has unique displacement when compared to all the other models. The X1 brace in
the X direction in SSL0 and SSL9 type buildings exhibits the most significant reduction in story drift.
Using X bracing, storey drift is reduced by 60–90%[14].

Figure 12 Storey Drift for Steel bracing Frame in X- Direction (Zone IV)

12
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Figure 13 Storey Displacement for Steel bracing Frame in X- Direction (Zone IV)

Figure 14 Storey Drift for Steel bracing Frame in X- Direction (Zone V)

13
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

Figure 15 Storey Displacement for Steel bracing Frame in X- Direction (Zone V)

Table 2 Explain the base shear of all three sets of framed structures in zone IV and zone V

Table 2: Base shear

Models Base shear (kN)

Case I Case II
Set I 1700.72 2551.08

Set II 2062.43 3093.65

Set III 1707.53 2561.32

6. Conclusion
In this study, the soft storey is adjusted at various levels, and seismic characteristics such as storey
displacement, base shear, and storey drift are investigated. According to IS 1893, India has seismic zones
IV and V that are considered to be very severe. Therefore, the modeled structure is placed in those zones.
The comparison of results from cases like the set I case I, set I case II, set II case I, set II case II, set III
case I, and set III case II was used for the significant conclusion. The soft storey changed at the eighth
level of the shear wall-provided RC structure in Zone IV (set II case I) and Zone V (set II case II), where
the minimum storey displacement (0.4893 Cm) and (0.734 Cm) occurred, respectively. This storey
displacement decreased overall displacements by 98.838 percent.

The soft storey was adjusted at the eighth level of the shear wall that supported the RC structure in
Zone IV (set II case I) and Zone V (set II case II)., where the minimum storey drift (0.0197 cm) and
(0.0296 cm), respectively. This story drifts reduced total drifts by 99.86%. The soft storey changed ont
14
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

eighth floor and the first floor of the Steel bracing supplied in the structure in Zone IV (set III case I)
and Zone V (set III case II), causing the minimum storey displacements of (1.0775 cm) and (1.3609
cm), respectively. The total displacements were minimized by 97.846 % for the storey displacement.
When the soft storey was located at eight levels in Zone IV (set III cases I) and Zone V (set III case II),
the minimum storey drift (0.6856 Cm) and (1.2954 Cm) occurred, respectively. These storey drifts
reduced total drifts by 92.6 %.
The soft storey structure with a shear wall is given with a base shear of 2062.43 kN in zone IV, and
3093.63 kN in zone V. Base shear for the soft storey structure provided by the Steel bracing is 1707.53
kN in zone IV and 2561.32 kN in zone V. The shear wall had the best performance in terms of earthquake
resistance when compared to the steel bracings taken into account for the analysis. So, in highly seismic
areas, the shear wall proved to be the most earthquake-resistant component in soft-story buildings.
Additionally, in lower areas where earthquakes are less likely to occur and where the magnitude of
earthquakes has less of an impact, providing steel bracing is thus effective.

References

[1] K. Chopra and d. p. Clough 1973 Earthquake resistance of buildings with a ‘soft’ first
storey earthquake engineering and structural dynamics volume 1 347-355.
[2] Ari Wibowo and John L. Wilson et al. 2010 Collapse modeling analysis of a precastsoft
Storey building in Australia Engineering Structures volume 32 1925–1936.
[3] Benavent-Clement and S. Mota-Páez 2017 Earthquake retrofitting of R/C frames with soft
Story using hysteretic dampers: Energy-based design method and evaluation
Engineering Structures volume 137 19-32.
[4] Dipti Ranjan Sahoo Durgesh C. Rai 2013 Design and evaluation of seismic
strengthening techniques for reinforced concrete frames with a soft ground story,
Engineering Structures, Volume 56 1933-1944.
[5] Elaina Jennings and John W. van de Lindt et al. 2014 Retrofit of a soft-story wood frame
building using SMA devices with full-scale hybrid test verification, Engineering
Structures volume 80 469-485.
[6] Rahul Ghosh and Rama Debbarma2017 Performance evaluation of setback buildings
with the open ground storey on the plain and sloping ground under earthquake loadings
andmitigation of failure, Int J Adv Struct Engg volume 9 97-110.
[7] Varaha Venkata Satya Surya Kumar Dadi & Pankaj Agarwal 2016 Nonlinear cyclic
performance evaluation of soft storey RC frame buildings based on different
characteristics of reinforcement, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering volume 20 738–
746.
[8] Mohammad Mahdi Javidan and Jinkoo Kim 2019 Seismic Retrofit of Soft-First-Story
Structures Using Rotational Friction Dampers Journal of Structural Engineering volume
145 04019162-1 - 04019162-12.
[9] IS1893-(2002): Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, part1: General
Provisions and Buildings. [CED 39: Earthquake Engineering].
[10] IS875-2(1987): Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other than Earthquake) For Building
and Structures, part2: Imposed Loads [CED 37: Structural Safety]
[11] Kashif Ahmer, Sharat. S. Chouka 2020 Seismic Performance Evaluation of Multi-Storey
Building Having Soft Storey with Different Location of Shear Walls, International
Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering Volume 9
[12] Silpa rani m v and Aishwarya s 2016 Seismic response of irregular RC building with a soft
storey at different levels, International Journal of Science and Research Volume 5 1045-
1048.
[13] Shamshad Ali Nd Farhan Malik et al 2017 Analysis of Building with Soft Storey During
Earthquake, International Research Journal Of Engineering And Technology Volume 04
1005-1009.

15
ITSCMSI-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1130 (2023) 012023 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1130/1/012023

[14] Shalaka dhokane and k. k. Pathak 2016 A study on the effectiveness of bracing systems in
soft storey steel buildings, Journal on Today’s Ideas – Tomorrow’s Technologies,
Volume 4, 97–10

16